Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

nuclear

124

Comments

  • #152
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    I've done cost benefit analysis of domestic PV installations before for a college assignment and it came out as pretty dire.
    A CBA is based on cost assumptions, which is separate to what I'm talking about. PV works well and well become more cost-competitive as the technology matures and prices fall.

    On the other hand, the costs of nuclear are only going up. Unless countries like France are willing to invest in R&D in the new technologies, their costs will remain astronomical.


  • #153
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Just because one investment is a poor one doesn't make another slightly less poor investment a good one.
    I'm not suggesting that it does. Personally, based on the evidence I've seen thus far, PV solar is probably not something that makes sense on a large scale in Ireland at this point in time. As you say, the return on investment just isn't quite there at the moment.

    However, bear in mind that certain posters on this thread are arguing that nuclear represents a good investment relative to technologies such as PV solar and it is in that context that I posed the question.


  • #154
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,875 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    What is the break even time for nuclear , including paying for finance ?
    It's like a mortgage except you are don't make any payments in the first 10 years because you are waiting for the plant to be finished. (each year delay would add say 7% or whatever the cost of financing a loan is to the overall cost)

    you can see why once a nuclear plant is running there is a huge temptation to keep it running.
    Wow, now there's a revalation, people buy things and don't decommission them without good reason - no one would even have guessed that!

    I really should be thankful that the 1st owner of what is now my car (who probably paid IR£20,000 for it back in the day) succumbed to the "huge temptation to keep it running" and didn't scrap it arbitrarily after 50,000 miles, or 100,000 for that matter.
    an awful lot of hydro stations are built in underground cathedrals
    :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
    Solair wrote:
    There's never been political support for them. This has been tried before and resulted in some of the biggest protests ever seen at Carnsore point and basically launched what was to become the Green Party.
    Very true - Irish people are unduly frightened of nuclear energy. However, it is my view that the decision to say no to nuclear power is a strategic and environmental error, and I consider it my (partial) responsibility to question the anti-nuclear logic that has lead to this.

    Thanks to the Carnsore Point protesters, Ireland was condemned to 40+ years of almost absolute dependence on thermal-fired electricity.
    pljudge321 wrote:
    Just regarding the feasibility of integrating a nuclear plant into the Irish grid. I imagine it would be very difficult to integrate an inflexible 1GW+ plant into our relatively small system, especially with the level of wind we have. You would have to provide enough spinning reserve to cover its loss which would be quite difficult and we would have to have enough back up generation to cover it during outages. The network would also need a bit more re-enforcing would could instantly add another billion or so onto the capital cost.
    Ignoring all of the environmental arguments for or against, we don't really have the scale to justify the use of nuclear and we would still be entirely dependent on imported fuel and imported technology too.
    The concerns about scale of justified, but my preference would be for a number of small reactors, perhaps local small nuclear, like a 50MW version of the Toshiba 4S.

    As to the matter of "imported fuel" ... how would that differ from the current situation re: fossil fuels, and solar panels for that matter (all imported from Germany and China)
    Furthermore, we may have uranium in Donegal but former minister for the environment Eamon Ryan scotched two licenses for exploration when he came into power.

    So for a Green Party supported to come here now and say "We'd have to import fuel" ... there is a name for that kind of argument.
    "Starve the horse, then kill it because it can't pull"


  • #155
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    In all likely hood half the cost of a nuclear power station will be servicing the debt BEFORE you start earning anything.

    take 7% over 10 years.
    1.07^10 = 1.96

    And that's before delays and cost overruns.


    By comparison a technology with a payback time of 10 years would cost you nothing at that point.

    Solar in Ireland is crazy.

    but...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed
    580-kilometre (360 mi) long HVDC submarine power cable
    ....
    Budgeted at €550 million, and completed at a cost of €600m,[2] the NorNed cable is a bipolar HVDC link with a voltage of ±450 kV and a capacity of 700 MW.
    ...
    After two months of operation, the cable generated revenues of approximately € 50 million

    Distance between Ireland and Morocco is 2400 Km.

    So a 1GW cable to there would be 4x distance and 1.4 times the capacity
    the €600m would scale up to €3.428 Billion
    Add another two billion for 2GW of solar panels
    and another Billion pumped storage.

    you won't have any change out of €8 Billion.
    which is about the same as you'd need to build a 1 GW nuke including end of life (maybe)

    Of course it's ridiculous, but it shows that PV for Ireland could be considered at todays prices. If you factor in being able to sell the power to Moroco , Portugal and Spain and the UK through branches off the interconnector, and charge for them to share power with each other through it , the economics start to look less crazy. The mad thing about it is that NorNed was expected to make €64 million revenue a year, which would scale up to €91m a year. So the cable alone would take 40 years to pay for itself, same as a nuclear power plant.

    ( Of course we could export wind energy back down the cable too. )



    In the real world we already have 1GW connections with the UK so we don't need a 1GW reactor.

    We don't need a cable to Morocco, we just need a cable to the UK or perhaps France, and their interconnections would do the rest. We could sell PV into Spain / Portugal and use the revenue from that to pay the UK or France. Again crazy, but the back of the envelope suggests it could be done for less than Nuclear, AND it could be done in a fraction of the time.


  • #156
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Just because one investment is a poor one doesn't make another slightly less poor investment a good one. There are other areas in this country where the money could make a far greater impact in a far more cost optimal manner.
    Insulating properties that use electrical heating, appartments and businesses.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Insulating properties that use electrical heating, appartments and businesses.

    Case in point.


  • #158
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,875 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Insulating properties that use electrical heating, appartments and businesses.
    I don't think anyone is arguing that this is not a good idea.


  • #159
    noddyone2
    Registered Users Posts: 313 ✭✭noddyone2


    Dead right. France gets 80% of it's power from nuclear, doesn't seem to be doing much harm there. Those wind turbines are : unsightly, sited in our loveliest areas, a blot on the landscape, developer-led, noisy, harmful to birds, inefficient. We're being fed lies about this renewable energy stuff.


  • #160
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    The concerns about scale of justified, but my preference would be for a number of small reactors, perhaps local small nuclear, like a 50MW version of the Toshiba 4S.
    But they’re still not in commercial use? The design has yet to be approved.


  • #161
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    In all likely hood half the cost of a nuclear power station will be servicing the debt BEFORE you start earning anything.

    take 7% over 10 years.
    1.07^10 = 1.96

    And that's before delays and cost overruns.


    By comparison a technology with a payback time of 10 years would cost you nothing at that point.

    Solar in Ireland is crazy.

    but...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed

    Distance between Ireland and Morocco is 2400 Km.

    So a 1GW cable to there would be 4x distance and 1.4 times the capacity
    the €600m would scale up to €3.428 Billion
    Add another two billion for 2GW of solar panels
    and another Billion pumped storage.

    you won't have any change out of €8 Billion.
    which is about the same as you'd need to build a 1 GW nuke including end of life (maybe)

    Of course it's ridiculous, but it shows that PV for Ireland could be considered at todays prices. If you factor in being able to sell the power to Moroco , Portugal and Spain and the UK through branches off the interconnector, and charge for them to share power with each other through it , the economics start to look less crazy. The mad thing about it is that NorNed was expected to make €64 million revenue a year, which would scale up to €91m a year. So the cable alone would take 40 years to pay for itself, same as a nuclear power plant.

    ( Of course we could export wind energy back down the cable too. )



    In the real world we already have 1GW connections with the UK so we don't need a 1GW reactor.

    We don't need a cable to Morocco, we just need a cable to the UK or perhaps France, and their interconnections would do the rest. We could sell PV into Spain / Portugal and use the revenue from that to pay the UK or France. Again crazy, but the back of the envelope suggests it could be done for less than Nuclear, AND it could be done in a fraction of the time.

    You're numbers are a bit off here, you'd need to double the number of solar cells to get a capacity factor approaching 1 GW and you haven't taken land, inverter, equipment or pv capital costs into the equation at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,875 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But they’re still not in commercial use? The design has yet to be approved.
    True, but as Solair points out there is zero political support for nuclear power in Ireland. By the time that changes if ever, I suspect this or other small-nuclear technologies will have become mature, if not obsolete.


  • #163
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    You're numbers are a bit off here, you'd need to double the number of solar cells to get a capacity factor approaching 1 GW and you haven't taken land, inverter, equipment or pv capital costs into the equation at all.
    €2 billion for 2GW - will cover a lot of the PV costs.
    How much is desert land in Morocco worth these days ?
    I've lumped a billion in to cater for pumped storage, and nuclear power plants don't run full capacity either.
    inverter costs are more than covered as the NorNed cable has two of these and I'm budgeting 4 times as much.


    Like I said back of an envelope, and you haven't pointed out that nuclear is way cheaper ?

    It's a thought experiment - "lets do something we know is crazy and see does nuclear stack up against it"


  • #164
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But they’re still not in commercial use? The design has yet to be approved.
    10MW for phase 1 and no price on it.

    At 10MW it's for a niche market.
    you'd need 500 of them to meet peak demand with no reserve capacity.

    even the 50MW version if it ever got made would mean at least 100 of them

    They are only for use in areas where fossil fuel is very expensive because of transport costs. And even then they are a solution in search of a problem.


  • #165
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    €2 billion for 2GW - will cover a lot of the PV costs.
    How much is desert land in Morocco worth these days ?
    I've lumped a billion in to cater for pumped storage, and nuclear power plants don't run full capacity either.
    inverter costs are more than covered as the NorNed cable has two of these and I'm budgeting 4 times as much.


    Like I said back of an envelope, and you haven't pointed out that nuclear is way cheaper ?

    It's a thought experiment - "lets do something we know is crazy and see does nuclear stack up against it"

    I'm not arguing nuclear is cheaper, though it probably would be then this plan.

    You can't hook up a bunch of PV panels to a 500 kV converter station, they operate at a far lower voltage than this so you would have to invert the output of the farm to AC, step it up through a trafo and then connect to the HVDC converter.

    Also to provide 2 GW of transmission capacity you would need to use current source converters rather than voltage source converters. These require a strong grid at the sending and receiving ends to commutate the valves so the local grid in morocco would probably need reinforcing. That or a bunch of STATCOMS.


  • #166
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    €2 billion for 2GW - will cover a lot of the PV costs.
    How much is desert land in Morocco worth these days ?
    I've lumped a billion in to cater for pumped storage, and nuclear power plants don't run full capacity either.
    inverter costs are more than covered as the NorNed cable has two of these and I'm budgeting 4 times as much.


    Like I said back of an envelope, and you haven't pointed out that nuclear is way cheaper ?

    It's a thought experiment - "lets do something we know is crazy and see does nuclear stack up against it"

    What about energy security? and you can't cover up the desert land in Morocco.


  • #167
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    It's a thought experiment - "lets do something we know is crazy and see does nuclear stack up against it" :p


  • #168
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    It's a thought experiment - "lets do something we know is crazy and see does nuclear stack up against it" :p

    :pac: I think I just enjoy picking holes in things.


  • #169
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,574 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    noddyone2 wrote: »
    Dead right. France gets 80% of it's power from nuclear, doesn't seem to be doing much harm there. Those wind turbines are : unsightly, sited in our loveliest areas, a blot on the landscape, developer-led, noisy, harmful to birds, inefficient. We're being fed lies about this renewable energy stuff.

    You mean " your opinion" they are all those things.... There are 2 on the hill behind my house less than .5km away. I think they look great, they're not noisy even up close. Most birds (not all ) are fine with them. ( cars,houses, intensive ag are much worse for birds) they're anything but inefficient... Can't say I know if they're cost effective or not... I'll be honest you come across a bit of a nimby begrudgers but that's just my opinion.....

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #170
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    :pac: I think I just enjoy picking holes in things.
    Put your hands where we can see them and stand away from the reactor ....


  • #171
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,574 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    pljudge321 wrote: »
    :pac: I think I just enjoy picking holes in things.
    Put your hands where we can see them and stand away from the reactor ....

    Boom Boom.

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Markcheese wrote: »
    noddyone2 wrote: »
    Dead right. France gets 80% of it's power from nuclear, doesn't seem to be doing much harm there. Those wind turbines are : unsightly, sited in our loveliest areas, a blot on the landscape, developer-led, noisy, harmful to birds, inefficient. We're being fed lies about this renewable energy stuff.

    You mean " your opinion" they are all those things.... There are 2 on the hill behind my house less than .5km away. I think they look great, they're not noisy even up close. Most birds (not all ) are fine with them. ( cars,houses, intensive ag are much worse for birds) they're anything but inefficient... Can't say I know if they're cost effective or not... I'll be honest you come across a bit of a nimby begrudgers but that's just my opinion.....
    That is one of the things that pisses me off about renewables. People have a very wierd NIMBY towards them and most of the reasons are untrue


  • #173
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Jester252 wrote: »
    That is one of the things that pisses me off about renewables. People have a very wierd NIMBY towards them and most of the reasons are untrue

    Irish people seem to be like that in general.


  • #174
    Franticfrank
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Franticfrank


    Pfff, we aren't the only ones. The French and Germans are just as NIMBY as the Irish. The Germans are even kicking up a fuss because the Polish want to build a new nuclear plant near their border. I think Ireland is ideal for green energy, we don't have the population nor the money to warrant building a nuclear plant and if I am correct, nuclear energy is banned by our constitution.


  • #175
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Franticfrank wrote: »
    Pfff, we aren't the only ones. The French and Germans are just as NIMBY as the Irish. The Germans are even kicking up a fuss because the Polish want to build a new nuclear plant near their border. I think Ireland is ideal for green energy, we don't have the population nor the money to warrant building a nuclear plant and if I am correct, nuclear energy is banned by our constitution.
    well they goes the plans for the interconnector


  • #176
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,875 ✭✭✭SeanW


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Irish people seem to be like that in general.
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - you can't just put a wind farm on top of a scenic mountain range and expect that everyone is going to think they look beautiful.
    Franticfrank wrote: »
    Pfff, we aren't the only ones. The French and Germans are just as NIMBY as the Irish. The Germans are even kicking up a fuss because the Polish want to build a new nuclear plant near their border.
    Yes, I can imagine the Polish really care what the Germans think of their nuclear programme, especially given the probability that Germany will be drawing energy from it, sooner or later.
    I think Ireland is ideal for green energy, we don't have the population nor the money to warrant building a nuclear plant and if I am correct, nuclear energy is banned by our constitution.
    Not constitutional - nuclear electricity generation was formally banned in Ireland under the 1999 Electricity Regulation Act.


  • #177
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    SeanW wrote: »
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - you can't just put a wind farm on top of a scenic mountain range and expect that everyone is going to think they look beautiful.

    True. Its the same with power lines which are a necessary and vital part of the countries infrastructure but are opposed at every turn and field, often by environmentalists who somehow manage to simultaneously be pro-wind and anti the lines needed to actually utilise it.


  • #178
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    To be honest, I think the visual impact / tourism impact of a large nuclear facility are far worse than wind turbines.

    If you'd a large nuclear installation it will look ugly on the coast and it will rightly or wrongly, put a lot of tourists and anglers off going anywhere near it.

    You still have a big industrial complex, often large cooling towers, huge power lines, and all of that stuff going in and out of a nuclear facility.


  • #179
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Solair wrote: »
    To be honest, I think the visual impact / tourism impact of a large nuclear facility are far worse than wind turbines.

    If you'd a large nuclear installation it will look ugly on the coast and it will rightly or wrongly, put a lot of tourists and anglers off going anywhere near it.

    You still have a big industrial complex, often large cooling towers, huge power lines, and all of that stuff going in and out of a nuclear facility.

    That's true with any power station though. Look at the blot on the landscape that is Moneypoint. There is that added fear element with a nuclear plant though which does have the effect you've described.

    moneypoint-1.jpg

    Saying that I don't think having nukes has really dented France or Switzerland's tourism sector all that much.


  • #180
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Solair wrote: »
    To be honest, I think the visual impact / tourism impact of a large nuclear facility are far worse than wind turbines.

    If you'd a large nuclear installation it will look ugly on the coast and it will rightly or wrongly, put a lot of tourists and anglers off going anywhere near it.

    You still have a big industrial complex, often large cooling towers, huge power lines, and all of that stuff going in and out of a nuclear facility.

    It's not really relevant. You don't need hundreds of nuclear plants.

    The problem with wind (in this instance) isn't that you need to build windmills - it's that they've low energy density and you need to build alot of them.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,875 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Solair wrote: »
    To be honest, I think the visual impact / tourism impact of a large nuclear facility are far worse than wind turbines.

    If you'd a large nuclear installation it will look ugly on the coast and it will rightly or wrongly, put a lot of tourists and anglers off going anywhere near it.

    You still have a big industrial complex, often large cooling towers, huge power lines, and all of that stuff going in and out of a nuclear facility.
    You're just clutching at straws here: you're assuming that we don't know where the tourists go and would put a nuclear reactor in the most idyllic touristey spot possible.

    Nuclear power is a lot less location-sensitive than wind: any coastline or river will do, much the same as any thermal power generation station.

    And as to "stuff going in and out" I am more than happy to take up this point.
    ueg3-1.gif
    It doesn't take a genius to figure out that coal fired power requires a lot more visible inputs/outputs when the fuel quantities requried are so many orders of magnitude smaller for nuclear power.

    Or look at it this way:
    yu-fuel.gif
    No contest really    .


  • #182
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    SeanW, I think most people understand that it isn't the volume of waste from nuclear plants that is the problem but the characteristics of it. Comparisons with coal are not very interesting as I don't think there are many on here, or elsewhere, who are arguing that we should power our electricity system with coal, or even a large percentage of coal.


  • #183
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    You're just clutching at straws here: you're assuming that we don't know where the tourists go and would put a nuclear reactor in the most idyllic touristey spot possible.
    Nukes are put in isolated areas. Look at the location's used in the UK

    And as to "stuff going in and out" I am more than happy to take up this point.
    you have neglected to include the volume of shielding.

    or the space taken up by exclusion areas in Japan, Russia, Ukraine, US and India


    You have posted about nuclear safety and waste volumes before Fukushima.

    Will you concede that you were wrong about them ?

    Or will you ignore the evidence and still claim that new stations will be safer and procedures will be better - remember you said those things before Fukushima.


    And since the best predictor of the future is the past. The nuclear power industry has failed miserably at estimating unknown risks , there have been far too many safety improvements that have come about from hindsight.



    The 20Km2 exclusion zone is about the size of County Dublin , that is a HUGE volume of waste. Had Carnsore Point had such an accident Wexford town would have to be evacuated, and we'd have lost Rosslare harbour.

    By comparison 200,000 tonnes of solid waste would only cover a few acres depending on how high it was stacked.


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51350313
    back in 2006 I rubbished your waste criteria where you cherry picked figures.


    and coal ash is a source of raw materials, and most of the heavy metals are locked in silicates.
    http://standardspeaker.com/news/company-s-idea-turn-waste-coal-into-aircraft-frames-armor-1.867762




    Bottom line is that yes coal ash is radioactive, but it's about the same level as granite, are we to ban public buildings and evacuate Wicklow ?


  • #184
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,875 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Macha wrote: »
    SeanW, I think most people understand that it isn't the volume of waste from nuclear plants that is the problem but the characteristics of it. Comparisons with coal are not very interesting as I don't think there are many on here, or elsewhere, who are arguing that we should power our electricity system with coal, or even a large percentage of coal.
    I was responding to one poster who I think was specifically concerned about the visual impact of inputs and outputs.

    As to comparisons with coal, I'm afraid it is instructive as saying no to nuclear inevitably means saying yes to fossil fuels. And like it or not, coal is the fossil fuel mainly used. Like they've been learning in Germany.

    Speaking of Germany, here's one news story you're not likely to find headlining an anti-nuclear (or pro renewable) publication:

    Power shift begins to move German industry.
    Nutshell, sky-high energy costs to subsidise solar PV etc have helped drive Germany's 3rd largest aluminium processor into bankruptcy.


  • #185
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Macha wrote: »
    SeanW, I think most people understand that it isn't the volume of waste from nuclear plants that is the problem but the characteristics of it. Comparisons with coal are not very interesting as I don't think there are many on here, or elsewhere, who are arguing that we should power our electricity system with coal, or even a large percentage of coal.
    Regards volume of waste. What is the volume of the Irish Sea ?? :mad::mad::mad:


    Until a site is decontaminated it represents a volume of waste , Nuclear waste occupies thousands of km2
    http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/cleanup/npl_sites.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site 520Km2 on one site.


    don't forget the mines
    http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopjdg.html


  • #186
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    Speaking of Germany, here's one news story you're not likely to find headlining an anti-nuclear (or pro renewable) publication:

    Power shift begins to move German industry.
    Nutshell, sky-high energy costs to subsidise solar PV etc have helped drive Germany's 3rd largest aluminium processor into bankruptcy.
    So basically you are saying they could not compete with Icelandic renewable costs :p


    voerde - 115,000 tonnes - represent a little over 0.2% of global aluminium production and are small fry in the global culling of surplus capacity. They haven't gone wallop yet either. And if they can weather the storm demand will rise again in future.

    http://www.aluminiumtoday.com/news/view/voerde-aluminium-launches-insolvency-proceedings/
    Germany’s third largest aluminium producer Voerde Aluminium has launched insolvency proceedings but said the business would continue to operate and it would seek to restructure.

    The company, which produces around 115kt/y of aluminium annually and has 410 employees, said it had hit liquidity problems because aluminium prices had fallen since July last year while production costs have risen.

    The smelter was sold by British group Corus in 2009 to BaseMet, owned in turn by investor Gary Klesch.

    "I am confident that we will be able to find a suitable solution to continue operations which will be in the best interests of the company and creditors," Chief Executive Wout Kusters said in a statement.




    http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/fluctuations-in-world-aluminium-capacity/462638/
    Europe, besieged by sovereign debt problems, is playing spoilsport for the aluminium market. ... . Banks, badly mauled during 2008-09 crisis and not inclined to take risks like in the past, are asking for adequate margins and also charging higher rates of interest. So, at every point in Europe – the trade, stockists and actual users – the attempt is to do with minimum inventory of aluminium
    ...
    The answer to setbacks in aluminium prices in last year’s final quarter will be largely found in a report of Bloomberg Industries that in the earlier three quarters smelter production outpaced demand by 953,516 tonnes
    ...
    The global deficit is based on the assumption that 1.1 mt of China’s 5.7 mt of unprofitable capacity will be taken offline. Industry officials will not rule out the possibility of another 1.2 mt of Chinese inefficient capacity being guillotined in case aluminium prices don’t rise fast enough.
    ...
    Rising energy and other input costs are to cause considerable churning in the world aluminium industry. Alcoa is to decommission 531,000 tonnes of smelting capacity, amounting to 12 per cent of its total. Rio Tinto is waiting for an “opportune moment” for divestment of 13 aluminium assets. .... “You will see new power efficient smelters replacing inefficient capacity across the globe. After all, global aluminium demand is likely to double by 2020,” says Bagra.


    BTW
    How are power hungry Aughinish doing these days ?


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    SeanW wrote: »
    As to comparisons with coal, I'm afraid it is instructive as saying no to nuclear inevitably means saying yes to fossil fuels.
    That's an assumption that has yet to be proven and therefore for me, comparisons with coal remain pointless. Everything looks good next to coal.
    SeanW wrote: »
    And like it or not, coal is the fossil fuel mainly used. Like they've been learning in Germany.
    The figures for this story has been traced back to "Reuters research", which has most probably been kindly supplied by the big power companies.

    The increase in coal use across the EU is a failure of the ETS system, not support for renewables and the story you link to (not that simply linking to a story is the same as actually putting forward an argument), doesn't go near proving otherwise.


  • #188
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    So basically you are saying they could not compete with Icelandic renewable costs
    Maybe not but are there lots of bubbling, steaming geysers in Ireland?


  • #189
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    I really don't get this - so if "saying no to nuclear inevitably means saying yes to fossil fuels" is
    Macha wrote: »
    an assumption that has yet to be proven"
    in the absence of bubbling steaming geysers how else are you going to provide the bulk of a nation's power - there are endless circles of discussion on these threads which evade over and over again the top level issues.


  • #190
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I really don't get this - so if "saying no to nuclear inevitably means saying yes to fossil fuels" is
    Macha wrote: »
    an assumption that has yet to be proven"
    in the absence of bubbling steaming geysers how else are you going to provide the bulk of a nation's power - there are endless circles of discussion on these threads which evade over and over again the top level issues.

    For the umpteenth time, many believe renewables are the answer. You have made it perfectly clear on countless occasions that you don't share this view.

    [mod] That doesn't mean you get to drag every thread off topic onto that particular debate. Please stop trying to do so with this thread. If you want to start yet another renewables-bashing thread, no one is stopping you.[mod]


  • #191
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,875 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Macha wrote: »
    That's an assumption that has yet to be proven and therefore for me
    :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
    Do you actaully believe this? I'm dead serious, what are you trying to say here?
    comparisons with coal remain pointless. Everything looks good next to coal.
    We use peat as well, that's filthy too (1.2 kg CO2 per kw/h, and requires the destruction of bogland). Oil is not very clean either. Gas is somewhat cleaner again but it assumes that you don't mind your nation becoming an economic vassal of Russia.
    The figures for this story has been traced back to "Reuters research", which has most probably been kindly supplied by the big power companies.
    Ah, so all the facts therein are made up? Which figures are you disputing, and on what grounds?

    Let's not forget that Germany has spent over €100,000,000,000 subsidising solar power, yet gets only 3% of its power from the installed capacity, and of course when Germany needs power the most, well, it seems they don't work very well in snow. And its power costs are only behind that of Denmark, another heavy spender on renewables subsidies.
    The increase in coal use across the EU is a failure of the ETS system, not support for renewables
    Let me guess, your talking about the European Unions Carbon credit trading system? I'm also guessing that the alleged "failure" of it was down to it not being draconian enough or onerous enough on the people and businesses of Europe? I'm not sure what else could have been done, realistically. And whatever that is, how much would it have cost? Or worese yet, what kind of bizarre laws regulating our lives would we have to accept?

    You've also spectacularly missed my point - it's the irrational opposition to nuclear energy that has caused the continued massive use of coal, not support for renewables (though they haven't been much help).

    This is something that I blame the environmental-left for: demonising nuclear power out of all proportion to reality while touting renewables as some kind of credible alternative to the choice between fossil fuels and nuclear, when for example to supply 1/6th of the UKs electricity demand would require covering Wales with wind turbines - clearly an insane proposition. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Maybe not but are there lots of bubbling, steaming geysers in Ireland?
    And Hydro.

    And Wind.

    And Wave.

    Aluminium is a great way of storing / exporting electricity.


  • #193
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    This is something that I blame the environmental-left for: demonising nuclear power out of all proportion to reality while touting renewables as some kind of credible alternative to the choice between fossil fuels and nuclear, when for example to supply 1/6th of the UKs electricity demand would require covering Wales with wind turbines - clearly an insane proposition. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html
    Not this crap again - No one is proposing 100% wind.

    And besides you could easily fit all of wales in to the land owned by less than 300 individuals in Scotland. And there is offshore wind. And Scottish wind is windier. :p

    UK could get 20% of it's energy from tidal systems in the Irish Sea,
    http://sid.nerc.ac.uk/details.aspx?id=217&cookieConsent=A
    extrapolations from the University of Liverpool/POL work show a contribution of 20% to UK electricity supplies from tidal energy can be reliably envisaged, with a combination of barrages/lagoons (~ 15%) and tidal stream devices (~ 5%).
    So yeah you could replace Nuclear power in the UK with renewables without needing a single windmill or wave machine, or biomass, or solar or waste to energy. The lagoons sort out issues of intermittancy.


    While on the subject of Scotland they will be using renewables when the nuclear plants are phased out. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/05/18093247
    "Because the pace of development has been so rapid, with our 2011 target already exceeded, we can now commit to generating the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland's own electricity demand from renewable resources by 2020. By then we intend to be generating twice as much electricity as Scotland needs - just over half of it from renewables, and just under half from other conventional sources. We will be exporting as much electricity as we consume.



    Has anyone speced up a Shannon barrage ?


  • #194
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    Let's not forget that Germany has spent over €100,000,000 subsidising solar power...
    €100 million is not a very large figure in a country the size of Germany. How much have they spent subsidising nuclear?


  • #195
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    djpbarry wrote: »
    €100 million is not a very large figure in a country the size of Germany. How much have they spent subsidising nuclear?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
    The THTR-300 cost €2.05 billion and was predicted to cost an additional €425 million until December 2009 in decommissioning and other associated costs.
    ...
    From 1985 to 1989, the THTR-300 registered 16410 operation hours and generated 2891000 MWh, according to a full-load working time of 423 days.
    Oh it used some thorium too, and pebble bed.

    So simply put, this reactor was built by the efficient Germans, with some of the best health and safety legislation.

    But maybe if billions more are spent in countries with laxer health and safety then maybe they might get further.

    So 308MW for 423 days at a cost of just 23 times the total subsidy in solar.

    €2.3 Billion will buy a lot of renewables & storage. Pop up a dam in Norway and run an interconnector back. It's not rocket science, but then again the Germans are good at that too.




    cost per actual KWhr delivered ~ €1.41

    value of that KWh ? - on the Irish market base band units are usually worth about 0.03c each http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx (over the next few days the base price is 5-6c since there is very little wind forecast http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/ )



    When you consider costs of nuclear you can't consider the costs of the best plants in operation. You MUST also include the white elephants and dead ends too, because they have to be paid for. Experimental plants like this are albatrosses around the nuclear industry's neck.

    The same is true of renewables and fossil fuel stations, but not so many white elephants and even then they are probably assets instead of having to spend a huge pile of money on decommissioning.


  • #196
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,875 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    €100 million is not a very large figure in a country the size of Germany. How much have they spent subsidising nuclear?
    I forgot some zeros, the figure is €100 billion. That's €100,000,000,000.

    Post edited.


  • #197
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    I forgot some zeros, the figure is €100 billion. That's €100,000,000,000.

    Post edited.
    Big difference alright.

    but the investment is paying off in the way investing in Nuclear hasn't

    http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2012/02/23/why-german-has-done-more-to-fight-climate-change-than-any-other-nation/
    Germany has in the last 5 years made solar energy reach the poorest people in the world . The country’s subsideis have made large solar companies lower costs and improve technology at a rapid pace to keep up with the lowered subsidies. Solar Panels which were sold for $4/watt in 2008 are solar for 80c/watt now.
    ...
    not comparing the subsidies for solar with that of fossil fuels. Does he know thatFossil Fuel Subsidies globally amount to $550 billion a year which is many times more than that given to Solar, Wind and others.Even a developed country like Norway gives 5 times more subsidies to fossil fuels than renewable energy
    ...
    18 billion euros is the cost of solar energy over 20 years . He conveniently forgets/ does not know the basic concept of time value of money


    Back to Nuclear for a moment, insulation is a far better investment
    To avoid a ton of CO2 emissions, one can spend €5 on insulating the roof of an old building, invest €20 in a new gas-fired power plant or sink about €500 into a new solar energy system.


  • #198
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    SaenW says if we don't do nuclear, then we need to do fossil fuels -
    Macha then says not necessarily,
    Macha wrote: »
    ...many believe renewables are the answer.
    And Captn.M.'s come up with 20% from tidal
    Better still, lets also allow 20% from wind backed by the lagoons
    What about the rest?


  • #199
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Germany has in the last 5 years made solar energy reach the poorest people in the world
    This is a fair point and maybe a good starting point for poorer countries but in the long term might the poorer countries want energy when it's dark as well.

    There are quite a few comparisons going on in this thread at the moment about the amount of subsidy handed out to different generation methods etc; in order for them to be meaningful comparisons, they need to be proportioned to reflect the cost per unit of generation i.e. the percentage of overall energy generated and the number of years the technology has been used for need to be taken into account.


  • #200
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    This is a fair point and maybe a good starting point for poorer countries but in the long term might the poorer countries want energy when it's dark as well.
    as you well know no one is suggesting 100% solar without storage :rolleyes:


    The German costs include future subsidies , so it's not a spend it's an obligation and could disappear if there is a period of inflation

    nuclear costs are all up front and you are screwed if there is a period of inflation before you pay off the loan


  • #201
    Franticfrank
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Franticfrank


    €100 billion is alot of subsidies. I'm not surprised, they really have to pursue this root if they're going to survive the nuclear phaseout. Or else remain dependent on neighbours to import nuclear. I came across an interesting chart showing the amount of nuclear plants per country. I'm surprised the Slovenians have one with their relatively small size and population.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement